On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:51 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 8 dec. 2011, om 22:59 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +0000, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk > >>> in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be > >>> desired and that it likely is possible. > >> > >> This is true, though there's nothing to stop a distro that particularly > >> wants this from inventing their own stub recipes which just set > >> PACKAGECONFIG appropriately and then require the generic version. So > >> it's really just a question of what we want to be the default in > >> oe-core. > >> > >> Also note that, although you can parallel install multiple versions of > >> the gtk+ runtime on the target system, if you want the build system to > >> be deterministic then (in the absence of per-recipe sysroot > >> construction) you need some way to decide which one gets to provide the > >> gtk+-2.0.pc that other recipes will build against. (The different > >> targets have different library sonames so you can't just swap them out > >> at run time: a given binary will remain coupled to the particular Gtk > >> variant that it was compiled against.) And if the two variants could > >> conceivably be different versions of GTK then you also need a way to > >> deconflict ${includedir}/gtk-2.0. > >> > >> So it isn't quite as simple as just having the two recipes, there is a > >> bit of extra policy involved as well. And of course there would be all > >> the normal overhead in terms of parse time, memory footprint and > >> maintenance burden associated with having more recipes. > > > > This is the key detail I was missing. I thought they just might have > > been a drop in replacement. > > > > That isn't the case so this makes the choice easier, I think separate > > recipes don't make sense based on this. > > > >> So, in light of all the above plus the fact that everything is different > >> with Gtk+3 anyway, my preference for supporting directfb on gtk+2 in > >> oe-core would be to use PACKAGECONFIG and not have separate recipe > >> files. > > > > Agreed, given the above. > > So to be safe and give other directfb implementations a change, can > this PACKAGECONFIG option be named 'gtk-directfb' in DISTRO_FEATURES?
I think that is reasonable. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core